Steve Tignor on Tennis magazine has made a list of great years in open tennis. I think, he rates Mac's 1981 over Borg's 1979, which i wouldn't do. As pc1 writes, Borg had great years at the end of the 70s. Only the lack of the AO, which was skipped by the top players then, makes it look not as impressive as some of the recent years. But in truth, Borg was way more dominant than Wilander in 1988 for example, and his win-loss percentages over 3-4 years were better than anything Federer did in his great years. Besides: Tignor seems to rate Djokovic's year third behind Laver 1969 and Federer 2006. I personally think, that Federer played better, more dominant and aggressive tennis in 2005, despite winning 2 majors instead of 3..

Some should think twice about true and false facts. Not all list you find on the internet, are true or correct. This list above is certainly false, maybe made by Apex himself. Connors for example was 99-4 in 1974. Peter Bodo on Tennis online recently showed another false internet list, where Borg was listed with over 90% for 1977! In this list above, now suddenly he is given over 90% for 1979 and 1980. But this list isn't true neither. Following my stats, Borg had 5 years over 90 % win-loss percentage. With important invitational events, if you only count at least 8 men events, Borg was better than 84-6 in 1979, more like 105 or 110-6. Look at the draws of those invitational events, when Borg beat Connors, Mac, Vilas and other top players frequently in best of 5 matches. For 1978, the Collins Tennis history gives him 88-8 in official ATP tournaments, but with important invitationals he has over 100-8 wins for 1978. So better do a bit of research, before claiming on false stats.

And speaking of the uncompleteness of this list above, lets take a look on Connors won lost record. Collins Tennis History gives Connors 84-7 for 1978 ATP play, which would be another over 90% season ( by the way:in 1976 he was 100-12, not bad either). Maybe some should read some books on tennis, not only internet stats, where anybody can put on his own lists.

Some should think twice about true and false facts. Not all list you find on the internet, are true or correct. This list above is certainly false, maybe made by Apex himself. Connors for example was 99-4 in 1974. Peter Bodo on Tennis online recently showed another false internet list, where Borg was listed with over 90% for 1977! In this list above, now suddenly he is given over 90% for 1979 and 1980. But this list isn't true neither. Following my stats, Borg had 5 years over 90 % win-loss percentage. With important invitational events, if you only count at least 8 men events, Borg was better than 84-6 in 1979, more like 105 or 110-6. Look at the draws of those invitational events, when Borg beat Connors, Mac, Vilas and other top players frequently in best of 5 matches. For 1978, the Collins Tennis history gives him 88-8 in official ATP tournaments, but with important invitationals he has over 100-8 wins for 1978. So better do a bit of research, before claiming on false stats.

Yeah genius...I made that list, secretly sent it to TMF, told him to post it here so that I could quote his post...

You got me...you're too smart for me...

Btw, still waiting for data supporting your below statement:

"and his win-loss percentages over 3-4 years were better than anything Federer did in his great years"

I'm very curious which 3-4 seasons Borg had a winning percentage better than 95.3.

No, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all had "greater" seasons than Laver's '69 season. Laver's '69 season was fine, but it was from another era where the Australian Open was smaller than many Masters Series titles and three out of four slams were played on grass. There's no comparison, what Federer, Nadal and Djokvoic have done winning three slams in a year is more impressive than what Laver did.

Mac and Becker understand this. Laver was a fine player in his day, but he was playing in an era much weaker than today. Laver would be a top 50 player today, maybe crack the top 20, but he'd never be a slam champion.

And of course, he would be bageled by Santoro.

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.

Presuming that the statistics here are accurate (i.e. that the originator of this list was truthful), Federer obviously had three great winning years--up there with the very best, and thus is worthy of much respect and esteem. On a top-five list for one individual to have two spots, whereas ever other person has only one, is quite an achievement.

I presume that in some of the years listed here the losses were sprinkled in sporadically among the wins. I believe that all the hype about Djokovic's year started before the French Open, when he was unbeaten. Combining a near-record unbeaten streak and a high win-loss percentage (and ultmately three majors) has, I believe, led to all the hyperbole.

I retract what I said earlier, Djokovic's year was not sad or pathetic, it was pretty darn good. But tying for 10th does not make it the "greatest year in history."

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.

Quite right, Hoodjem nobody is deniying that. But the list isn't accurate nor complete. I don't know, why writers like Bodo (in an article about Nole in the 900 club) came up with such problematic lists. As said, Connors 1974 was 99-4 for a .961 percentage. Borgs percentage in 1979 is actually higher than 93%, or 84-6, as the list above shows. To his 13 titles which the ATP counts today (they have already changed that stat thanks to guys like O& M) Borg won 8 additional invitational events. That would make the count 104-6 for 1979. And for a 4 year period , Borgs percentage is imo unsurpassed. Ditto for 5 years. At least, the guy calling himself TMF, who came up with this list, "heard" about Borgs finishing with 4 over 90% seasons, it were indeed 5.
Bottom line is, and that was my point: Borg's 1977-1980 years are quite underrated today by writers like Steve Tignor. He puts recently Borg's 1979 behind Mac's 1981 or Wilander's 1988. I wouldn't do that. We should do more research, how the true records looked in the 70s and what the players activity was.

Lol, I'm not upset...he just made a false statement, which I called him out on.
He, then proceeded to "not notice" my post when he was asked for specifics.

The big red letters had the purpose of drawing his attention to my post in case he really did miss it...

PS. He was obviously lying. He made a statement which he knew to be false.
His motive? I don't know...

Actually the statement over a period of time doesn't seem incorrect and I don't believe he was lying. He's comparing Borg over a period of a number of years over Federer over a number of years if I read his statement correctly. He was not saying Borg's individual year is necessarily higher than anything in Federer's individual. This is how I interpret Urban's statement.

I believe Borg over a five year period is better than Federer over any five consecutive year period. So yes Borg is superior to Federer over a period of five years for winning period I believe. If I recall Federer is at 90.7% and Borg is higher by a bit.

Incidentally, just ask the man to explain his statement. Don't accuse a man of lying. And I don't think he was lying.

^^^^
I would appreciated if you post your list where you got your resources instead of calling my list is incorrect or incomplete. Just b/c you have your own resources doesn't mean your's are correct/accurate. And Collins isn't the only author who compiled these win/loss records, lol.

Borg's 1974 was recorded as 93-4, if you find another site that say he's 99-4 doesn't mean that is an absolute correct. There could be a reason for the discrepancy, we don't know.

^^^^
I would appreciated if you post your list where you got your resources instead of calling my list is incorrect or incomplete. Just b/c you have your own resources doesn't mean your's are correct/accurate. And Collins isn't the only author who compiled these win/loss records, lol.

Borg's 1974 was recorded as 93-4, if you find another site that say he's 99-4 doesn't mean that is an absolute correct. There could be a reason for the discrepancy, we don't know.

First of all it's Connors that's 99-4 and check the Collins book and other sources. And yes I do believe my sources are correct.

It's frankly getting tiring with everyone arguing over these trivial issues. We are suppose to help each other, not argue whether it's a 91.1 percentage or 90.1 percentage.

Please resolve all this issues. Please.

Honestly I find this stuff so petty. If you want to believe Connors was 93-4 so be it.